David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I am speaking in relation to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report as the deputy chair and I want to thank the chair for his constructive and professional management of the committee and also thank the secretariat for all of their work in putting together the report.

While the coalition members of the committee do support the vast majority of the content of the report, we do differ with the majority on the issue of the characterisation of the cashless debit card. I will explain the reasons for that difference, Mr Deputy Speaker. At paragraph 1.36, the report states:

For many years the committee has raised concerns regarding the human rights compatibility of the CDC program with multiple human rights. As such, in abolishing this specific program the committee considers this bill is a rights enhancing measure.

I and the other coalition members do not agree with that conclusion. We're of the view that the benefits of the cashless debit card are substantial and constitute a permissible limitation on human rights.

Without going into immense detail, there is a four-limbed test in relation to human rights issues. Many aspects of government legislation—in fact, probably most aspects of government legislation—touch in some way on human rights issues, but when those issues are touched on in a way which is permissible under the four criteria, that legislation can go forward. We certainly believe that this legislation complies with those four criteria, the first of which is that the limitation is prescribed by law. That was done very clearly with the cashless debit card with the provisions in part 3D of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. It's very clearly set out, so that limitation test is clearly satisfied.

The second criterion is that the limitation seeks to achieve a legitimate objective. The objectives of the cashless debit card are very clearly set out in the legislation. They are very significant and important objectives—that is, to reduce spending on alcoholic beverages, gambling and illegal drugs; to support program participants and voluntary participants with their budgeting strategies; and to encourage socially responsible behaviour. So they are quite reasonable objectives.

The third limb is that the limitation is rationally connected to that objective, which it is. Indeed, the University of Adelaide's report on the card demonstrated some very positive outcomes of it, including that over half of the respondents were in favour of the cashless debit card and that 45 per cent of respondents said that the card had improved things for themselves and their family.

The final criterion is that the limitation is proportionate, which it is. There are more than a million retail outlets at which the card can be used, demonstrating its accessibility, and more than 4,000 people have voluntarily taken up the card, demonstrating its proportionality because clearly people are taking it up voluntarily. They are doing so because they believe it is in their best interests.

For those reasons, we do believe that the cashless debit card legislation was a permissible limitation on human rights, and I, Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Nampijinpa-Price have included some dissenting comments to that effect.

See this speech in context